Case Summary (G.R. No. 102653)
Legislative and Regulatory Framework
Section 11(b) of RA 6646 bans any sale or free donation of “print space or air time for campaign or other political purposes” to anyone but COMELEC. Under BP 881, COMELEC must procure “Comelec space” in newspapers (Sec. 90) and “Comelec time” on radio/TV (Sec. 92), allocating both equally and free of charge among candidates within each media’s coverage area.
Constitutional Basis for Election Regulation
1987 Constitution Article IX-C §4 expressly authorizes COMELEC, during election periods, to supervise or regulate media franchises and permits “to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply…for public information campaigns and forums among candidates.” Article II §26 mandates equal access to opportunities for public service.
Presumption of Validity and Scope of Judicial Review
Statutes carry a strong presumption of constitutionality; challengers must clearly prove infringement. Here, the question is whether Section 11(b) constitutes permissible election-period regulation under COMELEC’s constitutional supervisory power or crosses the line into impermissible suppression of expression.
Temporal and Substantive Limits of Section 11(b)
Section 11(b) applies solely during defined election periods and only to paid political advertisements (including transactions disguised as donations). It does not restrict:
- News reporting or coverage of candidates’ qualifications, platforms, or events
- Unpaid commentaries, opinions, or editorials by journalists or columnists not secretly paid by candidates
Distinction from Sanidad v. Commission on Elections
In Sanidad (181 SCRA 529), COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 barred media practitioners from campaigning on plebiscite issues. The Court found no constitutional basis for regulating non-franchise-holder expression in a plebiscite, which lacks candidate offices. By contrast, Section 11(b), linked to constitutionally granted COMELEC supervisory authority under Art. IX-C §4, regulates franchise usage during elections where candidate equality is a constitutional concern.
Exemption and Equal Allocation through COMELEC Time and Space
Section 11(b) exempts procurement by and allocation to COMELEC, which must allocate space and time equally among all candidates. Absent proof of COMELEC’s failure or bias in allocation, official acts are presumed regularly performed, with judicial remedies available for any irregularities.
Balance Between Free Expression and Electoral Equality
While freedom of speech and press are fundamental, they are not absolute. In the election context, equality among candidates in accessing powerful mass media forums is a compelling state interest. The restriction on paid media advertisements bears a reasonable nexus to the constitutional goal of equal opportunity, mitigating undue influence of wealth on elections without silencing news or commentary.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 102653)
Procedural History
- Three consolidated petitions filed under G.R. Nos. 102653, 102925, and 102983, all decided March 5, 1992
- Petitioners include representatives of print and broadcast media, individual candidates, taxpayers, voters, and prospective candidates
- Common issue: constitutionality of Section 11(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reforms Law of 1987)
Facts
- Republic Act No. 6646 § 11(b) forbids newspapers, radio or TV stations, and other mass media to sell or donate print space or air time for campaign or political purposes except to the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
- Comelec Resolution No. 2328 (Jan. 2 1992) defined the May 1992 election period as Jan. 12–June 10, 1992
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 §§ 90–92 require Comelec to procure “Comelec space” in print and “Comelec time” in broadcast media, to be allocated free, equally, and impartially among all candidates
- Petitioners claim the prohibition amounts to censorship and abridges freedom of expression, press, speech, and voters’ right to information
Issues
- Whether Section 11(b) of R.A. 6646 violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, expression, and of the press
- Whether the prohibition is a valid exercise of Comelec’s constitutional supervisory or regulatory power under Article IX-C(4)
- Whether the statutory scheme unduly restricts media reporting, commentary, and candidates’ access to information channels
Constitutional Provisions
- Article III § 4: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press…”
- Article II § 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service…”
- Article IX-C § 4: Comelec may supervise or regulate media permits to “ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, and the right to reply…for public information campaigns and forums among candidates….”
Petitioners’ Arguments
- S